Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Danno

Michael Le Vell

By Danno, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Mike Oxlong

Mike Oxlong

Posted
Posted

"The jury of eight women and four men took just over four hours to return verdicts of not guilty on all counts." - BBC

Not much room for ambiguity there.

I don't think so. Either you're guilty or you're not.

 

 

 

 

 

Correct.

 

But it doesn't follow that they concluded that the complainant was lying.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

"The jury of eight women and four men took just over four hours to return verdicts of not guilty on all counts." - BBC

Not much room for ambiguity there.

I don't think so. Either you're guilty or you're not.

 

That's what the term 'not guilty' means - that the crime could not be proven in a court of law. That could be because the defendant actually didn't do the crime or the prosecution wasn't able to prove that the defendant carried out the crime. Our justice system isn't infallible because it's all down to 12 ordinary men and women passing judgement.

 

 

So she said he raped her, the jury said he didn't, but she isn't lying? How does that work then?

 

She said he raped her, the jury said there wasn't enough evidence to prove it. Whether she was lying or not is still open to question because of that.

Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

Sure the judge said in his summing up statement they must come to a verdict on whether or not they believe the evidence from the victim that has been put forward as the forensic evidence was "neutral".

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

Sure the judge said in his summing up statement they must come to a verdict on whether or not they believe the evidence from the victim that has been put forward as the forensic evidence was "neutral".

 

If that's the case then I'm amazed it took that long to produce a 'not guilty' verdict.

 

One word against another with no witnesses and neutral evidence should never be enough to convict someone.

Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

If that's the case then I'm amazed it took that long to produce a 'not guilty' verdict.

 

One word against another with no witnesses and neutral evidence should never be enough to convict someone.

 

Four hours is pretty much as quick as you get in a case such as this.

Mike Oxlong

Mike Oxlong

Posted
Posted

So she said he raped her, the jury said he didn't, but she isn't lying? How does that work then?

 

Because through their verdict the jury have said they're not satisfied so that they are sure i.e the criminal standard of proof.

 

If they thought that she was lying they would obviously acquit.

 

If they thought that she was probably telling the truth the jury would also have to acquit as this would satisfy the civil but not the criminal burden of proof. Hence  it does not follow that the jury have concluded that her allegations were false.

 

The jury could have heard the same evidence in circumstances in which the complainant was a defendant charged with perverting the course of justice. If they had acquitted her it would signal that they could not be sure that she had made a false allegation but it would not be proof that they thought she had been raped.

MooseBreath

MooseBreath

Posted
Posted

Because through their verdict the jury have said they're not satisfied so that they are sure i.e the criminal standard of proof.

If they thought that she was lying they would obviously acquit.

If they thought that she was probably telling the truth the jury would also have to acquit as this would satisfy the civil but not the criminal burden of proof. Hence it does not follow that the jury have concluded that her allegations were false.

The jury could have heard the same evidence in circumstances in which the complainant was a defendant charged with perverting the course of justice. If they had acquitted her it would signal that they could not be sure that she had made a false allegation but it would not be proof that they thought she had been raped.

So in other words, pretty much anyone can make accusations like this, and as long as you can't conclusively prove it definitely didn't happen, then the accuser is totally free from the risk of being held to account for their lies?
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

No it isn't.

 

Can't remember one quicker, the Sky reporter on said they expected this to last a couple of days as it was based on just verbal evidence.

 

To throw it out in that space of time I think we can be quite sure they didn't believe her.

Mike Oxlong

Mike Oxlong

Posted
Posted

So in other words, pretty much anyone can make accusations like this, and as long as you can't conclusively prove it definitely didn't happen, then the accuser is totally free from the risk of being held to account for their lies?

 

 Convictions for false allegations of rape are brought successfully e.g http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358759/Leanne-Black-finally-jailed-FIVE-false-rape-allegations-ex-boyfriends-years.html

 

They are not commonplace because the jury would have to be satisfied so that they were sure that the allegation was false before being in a position to convict.

 

Todays verdict was IMO the most likely outcome of this trial. Given the lifelong implications for the accused I would need to find the evidence of the complainant utterly compelling before I could convict on an uncorroborated historical account. If I did not find it compelling to that high standard I would acquit but it does not necessarily follow that I could be sure that the complainant was lying. Even if I thought she was probably telling the truth I would have to acquit.

Mike Oxlong

Mike Oxlong

Posted
Posted

Can't remember one quicker, the Sky reporter on said they expected this to last a couple of days as it was based on just verbal evidence.

 

To throw it out in that space of time I think we can be quite sure they didn't believe her.

 

 

Who's the "we". You and Moosey? lol

 

I don't think you can be sure of what the jury thought other than that they were not satisfied so that they were sure but if you have any inside info I'd be intrigued to hear it.

 

I'd be grateful too if you could provide me with the empirical evidence of your personal experience as to how long it takes for a jury to return a verdict in cases of alleged rape.

 

Bottom line is, they are likely to have asked themselves are we sure on her word alone. If the answer is no they acquit. It was not their function to decide if she was lying so your assertions are highly speculative :thumbup:

Mike Oxlong

Mike Oxlong

Posted
Posted

Will the complainant now be put on a seperate trial so a seperate jury can decide whether or not there is enough evidence to say she is lying?

 

Unlikely. Her word against his. Today's verdict means that they're not sure he did it.

 

Similarly, it would be difficult in the absence of additional evidence to be sure that the complainant is lying.

 

Not at all surprised by today's verdict or the speed at which it was returned. To prosecute there ought to be evidence that is sufficient to give a reasonable prospect of conviction. I'm not sure it ever reached that standard here and suspect that the decision to prosecute may have been influenced by the prevailing climate at the time.

Captain...

Captain...

Posted
Posted

The accusers are sick for putting him through this - it'll ruin his life.

Here's my two cents on the story;

 

http://thechriswhitingshow.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/the-damning-consequence-of-accusation/

 

 

First thing, accusing the accusers of being liars, calculating, nefarious, basically saying they deliberately set out to ruin Le Vell, is surely doing exactly what you are complaining about in your blog. There is no evidence they are lying, and there is no evidence they are telling the truth. Should they get convicted of perverting the course of justice or whatever the offence is, (celeb-baiting maybe) then you can write that, but surely by treating them as guilty until proven innoceent you have just hippocracised yourself.

 

Secondly, spell check/proof reading, even a quick read through I spotted 2 errors.

Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

Next Up...Nigel Evans, come on down...

FuriousFox46

FuriousFox46

Posted
Posted

First thing, accusing the accusers of being liars, calculating, nefarious, basically saying they deliberately set out to ruin Le Vell, is surely doing exactly what you are complaining about in your blog. There is no evidence they are lying, and there is no evidence they are telling the truth. Should they get convicted of perverting the course of justice or whatever the offence is, (celeb-baiting maybe) then you can write that, but surely by treating them as guilty until proven innoceent you have just hippocracised yourself.

 

Secondly, spell check/proof reading, even a quick read through I spotted 2 errors.

He was proven innocent so surely they are lying?

Although, I see your point.

It's bad, I know but I never proof read.

The Quick Brown Fox

The Quick Brown Fox

Posted
Posted

The problem with cases like this is mud sticks doesn't it? and he will have this with him for the rest of his life. People won't trust him around their kids and he won't feel safe around kids for fear of being accused again.

It would be nice to see the accusers put on lie detectors before any of this goes to court. I know they are not 100% correct, but I feel it would be better to have a idea on if it was true or not.

Edit

Also it would be nice to see people falsely accused get justice by putting the accuser on trial and jailed if found guilty.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...